Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Ace, your attempt at conflating Sharia & Jim Crow law, is the lowest I've seen you crawl.

It reminds me of a time, in a different thread, where you were called out on your bobbing & weaving tactics.
Someone used the term "shucking & jiving" and you went all boo-hoo pissy about the racist origin of that term and announced to the entire audience of TFP that you were a 50+ year-old black man.

It was cheap horseshit then, and it's cheap horseshit now.

 

Jim Crow: oppressive racially based law, used as a means of control

Sharia (at least as it is protrayed): oppressive religious law, used as a measn of control

Not that much of a streatch

 

I think the key is how people perceive the concept of "profit". I see "profit" simply as something that is required for progress, working for a surplus or having more than what is required for immediate needs. I think of something like the interstate highway system or the space program - a nation has to be in a "profit" situation in order to engage in those things that will have a potentially big future payoff. I image some simply perceive "profit" negatively.
--- merged: Oct 17, 2011 4:22 PM ---

Different businesses are modeled in different ways with similarities to various types of governments. I agree most are more like dictatorships than representative democracies.
--- merged: Oct 17, 2011 4:25 PM ---

Jim Crow is a simple way to describe a complex social structure. No one would dispute that justice did not serve all people equally. There was one set of laws for one group and a set of laws for others.
--- merged: Oct 17, 2011 4:34 PM ---

It is difficult for me to communicate with those who do not read and put posts in the context of what came before it.

There was a well publicized instance where a young Islamic girl sought emancipation from her father to change her religion. She feared the threat of violence, even death. Do you want to pretend her concerns were not real? Do you think it would be acceptable for one form of justice for her and another for a different teen? Please clarify your views, I don't understand what your disagreement is with me.

 

it's of some interest that cain's ties with the koch brothers are becoming more widely known, as is the fact that romney has robert bork--federalist numbero uno---as a legal advisor. you know, bork who just announced that women were not discriminated against any more:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/17/345467/romney-legal-advisor-robert-bork-women-aren’t-discriminated-against-anymore/

so we see the oligarchs who run the show that is the right trying to navigate for themselves a no-loose situation. no matter which republican you vote for, the outcome will be the same old shit. that should on it's own make it supremely irrelevant which of them wins the television-specific horse-race of the primaries.

the function of the television primary sporting event is now laughably evident---to present the interchangable candidates preferred by the plutocrats as if they represented something like viable choices from amongst a range of options---and in so doing, to provide the illusion that the us political system is not broken.

 

You wrote about running government like a business is a loaded phrase, suggesting that there is meaning beyond the formal definition. I thought drilling down into it revealed that the key component was the concept of profit. Profit has a formal definition and it clearly has different meanings beyond that to different people. I described what it meant to me.

Businesses are run by people. The people running a business may have goals other than profit.

On occasion it is not. Ben and Jerry's came up, I clearly made the point that profit was more important than their social agenda. Some disagree. What is you view, if you are familiar with the company.

In my business I make profit secondary to being available to my family and quality of life issues. If I placed profit above all else, I would have made different decisions - and would most likely be single or divorced.

There is no contradiction in what I write, I just make the point that it is not always profit, profit, profit. Like in all human decisions various factors come into play and those factors may increase or decrease in importance depending on circumstances.
--- merged: Oct 17, 2011 7:02 PM ---

Are you saying that Republicans want a candidate that reflects the general collective views that are held by Republicans? Yes. Yes. I want a choice between a candidate who shares my views or another candidate that shares my views - ergo a no-loose situation. Is the implication in your post one that would suggest that, whatever your political affiliation is, your preference is to have a choice between one who shares your views and a choice that does not? And you think this would be good for your cause, because....?

 

you are not representative of all republicans, ace. you are a far right markety-market fundamentalist with a penchant for repeating whatever the talking point of the moment is when you decide to take time out from repeating markety-market fundamentalisms. there are social conservatives who are not all markety-market. and there are old-line conservatives who think most populist conservatives nuts. and once upon a time there were moderates---but i think the jerk to the right is going to drive most of them away.

anyway, there's a range (and the above is not comprehensive, obviously. there are militia types and right-wing libertarians and the nra gun set and so on...)

what i was surprised at is the on-going efforts to stack romney--who is a moderate with far right ideologues like bork just behind the scenes. personally, i hope that the oligarchs who run the charade that is the republican party keep doing what they're doing---as they are progressively more outed, each such move reduces the chances that any republican candidate will be viable to anyone not already in that increasingly far right and increasingly marginal space that is the central conservative demographic. just as i expect the going-mainstream of what many already knew about cain's connections with those fine koch brothers should be enough to fry him.

 

I know, however my goal is to have choices that reflect a no-loose scenario. I think that is representative of all Republicans including Koch brothers. I expect them to use their influence accordingly, I do the same. The actual end result is that the choices made available reflect a diversity of interests. The final set of choices and the final selection will come down to republicans generally selecting from those who hold Republican views.

Oh, you think so little of me - am I really just a person who gets a set of talking points each day and then spends the rest of my time repeating those talking points to people?

Do you seriously think that there are no moderate Republicans?

There is clear divisions in the Republican party and there is a power struggle. You seem to suggest that it is all rigged by some behind the scenes group with deep pockets who can buy and sell influence controlling conservative thought. Is that how it works on your side of the political spectrum?
--- merged: Oct 17, 2011 9:28 PM ---

Anecdotal: I know a guy who started a business for his wife to give her something to do - doesn't care if the business makes a profit. Legally it is a business, it is not run like a business (in my view, with no profit motive), I think it is more like a hobby. Without the profit motive the business is run inefficiently. In my view I would rather government be run like a business than a "hobby" or any other alternative that I can think of.

Given the growth of the company I agree.

Yes. That is my point. I moved my business and it impacted my top line. I incur certain expenses as to improve the amount of time I have with my family, it impacted my bottom line. My decisions to use personal savings to fund my business at the start and when needed impacted my family and my ability to stay in business. I am a small (micro or nano) business - there is virtually no real separation. When they talk about sub-chapter S businesses that is me. The perception that small business is the same as big business is a big misconception held by people like Obama in Washington. In good times, when I hit a 10% profit margin - I still have 90% of every dollar going out the door - and some want even more than 35% of that 10% going to government. I guess they just want it all!

There goes my daily tax rant.

 

There are moderate Republicans; they have just become increasingly marginalized over the last 10 years as the party has swung farther and farther right. The Democrats? Not so much.

72% of Republicans are self-identified conservatives; 38% of Democrats are self-described liberals.

The power struggle in the Republican party is not conservative v moderate, but social conservative v fiscal conservative., with both factions become more extreme and neither one representing the majority of views of most Americans.

The Democratic party has always had a bigger tent and the fact that there are more Democrats self-identified as moderate than liberal (not to mention the nearly 1 in 4 self-identified as conservative) just reinforces the fact that there is not a party of the left in the US.
--- merged: Oct 17, 2011 9:53 PM ---

There is plenty of money influencing both sides, but since the Citizens United decision that allows groups not to disclose donors, this type funding has shifted significantly to the right and are accountable to no one. You have no idea who is funding the candidates you support.

In the 2010 Congressional election, conservative groups with non-disclosed donors = $120 million, liberal groups with non-disclosed donor = $12 million
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2010&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U

I, for one, would like to know who is buying the elections.

 

It does seem a small thing to ask (and an obvious thing to demand) that the voters should know who is pumping in the money.

I can't imagine a solid argument against a register of donations for all candidates and parties (or at least those donations above a certain level).

 

I want government to cast votes and enact laws and direct investment according to the views and interests of the people they represent (i.e. those who voted, not those who paid for their election).

I want people who work in government departments (whose job it is to act on the decisions of government) to believe in the principle of public service and also to challenge the politicians where necessary.

 

ace, i honestly don't know why i bother with you. i don't imagine a conspiracy so much as a concerted attempt by the money players to buy the election, enabled by that farce of a supreme court decision that took the brakes off corporate money flooding the electoral process. i find it interesting the ways in which influence is being purchased amongst a seemingly more moderate candidate like romney. and i find the fact of that---along with romney's maladroit efforts to adopt a campaign language that appeals to the benighted far right, to be funny. if you don't think that's gonna alienate moderates, ace, i would suggest that you're dreaming.

all this doesn't bode well for the right---and i applaud things that do not bode well for the right because i can see no way around the fact that most of the problems the united states has now originated with conservative economic thinking translated into practice. so this wreck is the right's wreck...and squirm and dissimulate as you inevitably will, ace, there's no getting around it.

 

I am taking this point to the next step for me, this is not changing the subject or ignore the point. I am not concerned about who is providing funding for the candidates I support. If they genuinely agree with my views, they will have my support. If they are perpetuating a fraud that is another matter. In my opinion most politicians with longstanding and consistent views are not up for sale to the highest donors. I think these people attract funding based on their views not to change them. I think this is true of some on the right and on the left. I tend to have issue with so called moderates - I suspect they are most prone to being influenced by money. I think on the Republican side Romney is a moderate - given the current field I will vote for Cain.
--- merged: Oct 19, 2011 3:35 PM ---

I argue that our government serves some at the expense of others. if that is a negative in business, then it is also a negative in government. I stated how I interpret the concept, your interpretation is different.

 

How much money would it take to buy the Presidency of the United States? If X% is hard right and X% is hard left do you think any amount of money being spend will make them vote for a candidate ideologically opposed to their views? So are you really talking about money impacting the X% in the middle or swing votes? If so, the money on the right that you think can have an impact has to cater to the swing voter. Isn't that the target? Isn't that the target of both those on the right and the left? Why would the money on the right have a bigger impact than the money on the left? Won't they more or less cancel out? I clearly don't get your point and doubt I ever will. I agree, I don't know why you bother with me either.
--- merged: Oct 19, 2011 3:49 PM ---

I generally think people vote based on their views and are not influenced by TV ads and other campaign materials. I think "get out the vote" and other ground work activities have a real impact. I think the worry about campaign finance is like tilting at wind mills.

If it exists, I would love to see objective data on how people think money can buy votes.
--- merged: Oct 19, 2011 3:54 PM ---

I think the point below applies to government and can apply to business - but either way it is not how I interpret the concept of running government like a business.

 

ace, you simply refuse to look at reality. that's why you don't get things.
1. there is no "hard left" when you're referring to the democratic party.

2. i don't understand what interest you have in minimizing the impact of unlimited corporate money flowing into the electoral process. you act as though your religious relationship to ultra-rightwing politics is the norm. well, it isn't.

3. corporate money allows for blizzards of advertising. you have no data on the impact of advertising on political choices. so your imaginary canceling out is more about you preferring to act as though citizen's united is not going to disproportionately benefit the right.

btw i have access to a lot of data about marketing and politics. but you won't read it, so what's the point of asking for it?

the problem for the right, however, is crumbling legitimacy. so maybe there will be a cancellation...but it'll follow more from the assimilation of the tea party, from the demonstration that the right only cares about its own power and is willing to do anything---anything at all---to advance its imaginary move toward it---like killing a moderate jobs bill and offering fuck all in its place, or risking shutting down the government over a meaningless debt cieling debate--or by offering nothing but paralysis as a "solution" to crisis....